Richard Dawkins. Still the best by far.

[rasetsu]

@Pappa: Well, somebody dropped the scale into a discussion without the provisos, and it was quite incoherent. The risk you run in pitching your arguments against only the Semitic religions, is they're often portrayed as general arguments against religion, and in that sense they become straw men. That was one of the problems with God Is Not Great, Hitchens wrote the book against all religion, but waffled all over the place and never gave a clear notion of what he was arguing against. It was just a parade of horrors with no point; if you read him charitably, it's an indictment of all religion; if you read him critically, it never makes a point against any specific thing. I frequently run into people on atheist forums who pose bold arguments about, "Why we have religion," or "What's wrong with religion," and you read their arguments, and it's plain that the only "religion" they were modeling their arguments on was a narrow view of Christianity, or the Abrahamanic faiths as a whole. Usually they have no clue about world religions throughout history, and often don't even understand the historical character of the Abrahamanic faiths, especially Judaism, as well. And what you end up with is a mirror of the creationist's crap of, "these are our conclusions, what facts can we find to support it" — only it's an atheist version of it. They want to argue against theism, so they argue backwards from the theisms they know based on the conclusions they want to reach. Someone — who I thought was my friend — over at AFO started a thread that basically argued two things: a) religion is stories that got distorted over time, and b) was formulated as a tool of control for the leaders (and specifically Divine Right of Kings). Well I was tired, so I just said I disagree and left it at that. The next day I come back and he'd taken a cheap shot at me for daring to question his explanation of why religion was unnecessary. Apparently, for some atheists, critical thinking is what you do to "them". Makes me so mad.

[FBM]

...Apparently, for some atheists, critical thinking is what you do to "them". Makes me so mad.

Ain't that the truth? Some do tend to treat anti-theist statements made by fellow atheists with kid gloves, perhaps out of a sort of esprit de corps. But just because you happen to agree with someone's conclusion doesn't mean you should be blind to the structure and quality of their arguments.

[JimC]

I bought Dennett's Breaking the Spell when it was released but I've never been able to finish it. Something about his style of writing puts me to sleep.

I read about 1/4 of Breaking The Spell and had to stop. I think he was pacing it slowly, intentionally, to have a better chance of persuading religious readers. I couldn't stand it, it was sooooo slow. I've been reading Dennett since Consciousness Explained. I persuaded one of my atheism book clubs to read Freedom Evolves, and everybody hated it — including me. His earlier free will book, Elbow Room, is much better, but it's pretty dense reading. Beyond that, I'd recommend Darwin's Dangerous Idea and Consciousness Explained. I think I read some of The Intentional Stance, which is probably his most important philosophical work, but I don't remember it; probably obligatory reading.

He is in quite a few Youtube videos, and he's not a bad speaker, so you might check him out there.

I agree with you about the intentional slowness of Breaking the Spell, but I still got something out of it. Darwin's Dangerous Idea was an excellent book, IMO...

[Audley Strange]

Interesting post actually Fretmeister.

It does seem to me that thisi is the aftermath of atheism as a "fashion wave". A lot of people seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of it being a community and since RDF collapsed it appears that "community" is fracturing further and further. This has obviously been helped along somewhat by self proclaimed "figureheads" who have the intellectual rigour and and objectivity of a bunch of high school children and by an increasing number of people trying to veer this loose net of people into their political agendas, which is not fit for purpose.

I think we could bring it together again. I think it still has important work to do, but right now were having to deal with a gang of women who's feelings are hurt, which is of course much much more important.

Atheism is neither a religion nor an ideology. Thinking that we should naturally "come together" is like thinking that everyone who doesn't like broccoli should "come together". There isn't really any significant commonality there.

I mean seriously, did all atheists start voting liberal democrat just because Dawkins did? Would it even make sense to do so?

In some people's world sadly it does.

[FBM]

I think the fact that we're collectively particularly distrusted, feared, maligned and reviled for our disbelief naturally lends itself to a feeling of esprit de corps in many. As for me, when I first learn that someone is an unbeliever, my first feeling towards them is something like kinship. If they turn out to be a dickhead later, well, that's that.

[Warren Dew]

I think the fact that we're collectively particularly distrusted, feared, maligned and reviled for our disbelief naturally lends itself to a feeling of esprit de corps in many. As for me, when I first learn that someone is an unbeliever, my first feeling towards them is something like kinship. If they turn out to be a dickhead later, well, that's that.

I've never made a secret of my atheism, and I've never been distrusted, feared, maligned, or reviled for it. I can imagine that some might be, particularly by family members who might feel betrayed, but I think a lot of atheists mistake being maligned for their intolerance of religion for being maligned for being atheist.

As for the feeling of kinship, I used to feel that, but militant atheism has largely cured me of it.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I bought Dennett's Breaking the Spell when it was released but I've never been able to finish it. Something about his style of writing puts me to sleep.

I read about 1/4 of Breaking The Spell and had to stop. I think he was pacing it slowly, intentionally, to have a better chance of persuading religious readers. I couldn't stand it, it was sooooo slow. I've been reading Dennett since Consciousness Explained. I persuaded one of my atheism book clubs to read Freedom Evolves, and everybody hated it — including me. His earlier free will book, Elbow Room, is much better, but it's pretty dense reading. Beyond that, I'd recommend Darwin's Dangerous Idea and Consciousness Explained. I think I read some of The Intentional Stance, which is probably his most important philosophical work, but I don't remember it; probably obligatory reading.

He is in quite a few Youtube videos, and he's not a bad speaker, so you might check him out there.

His writing style in Breaking The Spell is certainly dense and repetitious. However, I would attribute that to meticulous rigour and claim that it is well worth persevering with the book. I found Consciousness Explained (and the similar yet slimmer Kinds of Minds) to be fascinating reading and a far greater influence on me than anything by Dawkins - not that RD's Ev-Biol books aren't enlightening, just that Dennett's had much the bigger brain-boggle factor!

I have a few more of Dennett's books on my Kindle now - I am looking forward to reading DDI especially.

[FBM]

I think the fact that we're collectively particularly distrusted, feared, maligned and reviled for our disbelief naturally lends itself to a feeling of esprit de corps in many. As for me, when I first learn that someone is an unbeliever, my first feeling towards them is something like kinship. If they turn out to be a dickhead later, well, that's that.

I've never made a secret of my atheism, and I've never been distrusted, feared, maligned, or reviled for it. I can imagine that some might be, particularly by family members who might feel betrayed, but I think a lot of atheists mistake being maligned for their intolerance of religion for being maligned for being atheist.

I wasn't referring to my personal experience, but to such studies as this: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/edgell/home/Str ... alues.html

As for the feeling of kinship, I used to feel that, but militant atheism has largely cured me of it.

Yeah, it's been working on me lately, too.

[orpheus]

I bought Dennett's Breaking the Spell when it was released but I've never been able to finish it. Something about his style of writing puts me to sleep.

I read about 1/4 of Breaking The Spell and had to stop. I think he was pacing it slowly, intentionally, to have a better chance of persuading religious readers. I couldn't stand it, it was sooooo slow. I've been reading Dennett since Consciousness Explained. I persuaded one of my atheism book clubs to read Freedom Evolves, and everybody hated it — including me. His earlier free will book, Elbow Room, is much better, but it's pretty dense reading. Beyond that, I'd recommend Darwin's Dangerous Idea and Consciousness Explained. I think I read some of The Intentional Stance, which is probably his most important philosophical work, but I don't remember it; probably obligatory reading.

He is in quite a few Youtube videos, and he's not a bad speaker, so you might check him out there.

His writing style in Breaking The Spell is certainly dense and repetitious. However, I would attribute that to meticulous rigour and claim that it is well worth persevering with the book. I found Consciousness Explained (and the similar yet slimmer Kinds of Minds) to be fascinating reading and a far greater influence on me than anything by Dawkins - not that RD's Ev-Biol books aren't enlightening, just that Dennett's had much the bigger brain-boggle factor!

I have a few more of Dennett's books on my Kindle now - I am looking forward to reading DDI especially.

DDI is an excellent book. Really engrossing, superbly constructed and well-argued.

[hadespussercats]

I'd hit it.

OOOhhhh LP's got a rival!

There's room for everyone in the big bed of evolutionary biology.

Speak for yourself… This town ain't big enough for the both of our selfish genes…

I already got a baby daddy. I'm replicating memes.

[hadespussercats]

I bought Dennett's Breaking the Spell when it was released but I've never been able to finish it. Something about his style of writing puts me to sleep.

For a more rounded perspective on matters religious/spiritual I prefer Joseph Campbell's psychological take on religious symbology. Because he is not so quick to dismiss it wholesale it allows for a more in depth study of the mechanisms of various faiths and how they may have served a critical purpose in the growth of individuals and societies as a whole. Reading his works on, what we now call, comparative religion also lends excellent insights into the idiosyncrasies of different world cultures. Of course much of his analyses are based on Jungian premises, but I still think they are very valuable.

TGD influenced me not so much by argument, but by the popularisation of atheism that resulted from it and the other pop-atheism books published around the same time. I had been an atheist for a long time before that but I rarely spoke of it to anyone. TGD and RDF influenced me to become a militant atheist for a while - a phase I grew out of eventually as I gradually returned to being more genteel about it. I do not, however, hesitate to engage in argument about it now if I think it's worthwhile.

Joseph Campbell's a hero of mine. Drives me nuts, seeing Bill Moyers try to turn him into a believer in absentia.

[Svartalf]

Campbell? the mythographer?

I wish I had known of the Hero with a thousand faces when I was doing my Master's thesis... I might have spiffied it up a lot better with that kind of inspiration than I could with the help of Vladimir Propp.

[orpheus]

On myths I much prefer Károly Kerényi

[Jason]

I never did like Moyers. He was always trying to put a religious label on everything Joseph said even when he was alive.

[Svartalf]

On myths I much prefer Károly Kerényi

Pray tell on, it looks I didn't take the right courses in the university, or talk to the right people.